This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
| 2 minutes read

UPC case numbers, statistics and technologies update

The UPC has published an update on the caseload of the Court since its start of operation in June 2023. The number of cases has continued to climb, a large proportion of which is attributed to Defendants filing counterclaims for revocation in response to earlier-filed infringement actions. However, it is worth noting that these numbers are somewhat inflated, as each Defendant in an action must submit a separate counterclaim for revocation. 

The UPC has now received a total of 217 cases, including:

  • 83 infringement actions
  • 25 standalone revocation actions
  • 86 counterclaims for revocation (from 26 individual infringement actions); and 
  • 22 applications for provisional measures.

The Court of Appeal has received 11 appeals under RoP 220.1 and 13 appeals under RoP 220.2. The Court of Appeal has also received one request for discretionary review, two applications for suspensive effect and three applications for an order for expedition of an appeal.


A real breadth of technologies is encompassed in the pending UPC cases.  Amongst the largest cases, we see SEP/telecommunications patents (Panasonic v Oppo and Xiaomi), which were anticipated to form a large part of actions before the launch of the UPC. 

However, the early actions have also included technology relating to heart valves (Edwards Lifesciences v Meril Life Sciences), insulin pumps (Tandem v Roche), glucose-monitoring (Dexcom v Abbott), cochlear implants (Med-EI v Advanced Bionics), 3D printing of dental implants (CEAD v BEGO), anti-PCSK9 antibodies for lowering cholesterol (Amgen v Sanofi), RNA detection (10x Genomics v NanoString / Vizgen), the production and purification of retinal pigment epithelial cells (Astellas v Osaka University), e-cigarettes / vapes (NJOY v Juul / VRM), electric vehicles (Avago v Tesla), chip technology (Network System v Texas Instruments, Audi and Volkswagen), targeted advertising for sports stadiums (AIM Sport v Supponor) and robotic warehousing (Ocado v AutoStore, now withdrawn following global settlement).

Whilst the typically patent-heavy sectors of electronics, medical devices and life sciences are prominent in the cases above, it is worth noting that other, less typical sectors, are also represented in the cases filed so far. For example, luxury goods in the case of Agfa v Gucci, where the patent in question relates to a method of manufacturing decorated leather, and kitchen gadgets in the case of CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee Systems, relating to milk frothing devices. 


The number of cases adopting English as the language of the proceedings is on the rise, now at 43%, but German remains the predominant language of proceedings at 47%. 


The Munich Local Division remains the most popular for infringement actions (35%) followed by Düsseldorf (20%) and Mannheim (13%). The Local Divisions of Copenhagen, Lisbon and Ljubljana are yet to receive their first case. 

The Paris seat of the Central Division has received the most revocation actions (83%), with the Munich seat receiving the remainder. We wait to see what volume of cases the new Milan seat of the Central Division will receive, with an expected start date of June 2024. 

A detailed breakdown of the total caseload of the Court of First Instance is shown in the table below (from the UPC update here)**

A table with numbers and text

Description automatically generated

**) The table indicates only 20 revocation actions in the Paris seat of the Central Division whereas the full UPC update and CMS both list 21, taking the total number of revocation actions to 25.


life sciences, patent litigation, sep frand disputes, technology, upc, unified patent court